Advancing independence and inclusion of older adults and people with disabilities

December 17, 2024

Ms. Shannon Shelley-Tremblay

The University of Alabama
Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program
P.O. Box 870395
2008 12th Street
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487

Dear Ms. Shelley-Tremblay,

We are pleased to provide you with the enclosed Quality Review System (QRS) Report for
Protection and Advocacy System (P&A) - The Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (ADAP).
Thank you for participating in the QRS review. This report reflects the findings of the
Administration for Community Living (ACL).

Funding from ACL supports and promotes self-determination, independence, productivity,

integration, and inclusion of persons with developmental disabilities in all facets of community
life through culturally competent programs authorized under the Developmental Disabilities
Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (DD Act, PL 106-402).

The purpose of the QRS review is to conduct an in-depth assessment of how a P&A complies
with the requirements and achieves outcomes of the DD Act and federal regulation with funding
authorized under the DD Act. The report is divided into the following Sections:

(I) Executive Summary

(II) Overview of the Quality Review System
(III) Background on The Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (ADAP) P&A and
QRS Heightened Monitoring
(IV) QRS Heightened Monitoring Process
(V) QRS Heightened Monitoring Findings
(VI) Corrective Action Plan

The report captures the QRS review process and divides the review team's findings into areas of
strengths, satisfactory program aspects, areas of noncompliance, and areas for improvement.
The QRS process found that ADAP has been designated as a Red flag program as of December
17, 2024.
Red flag programs are those for which ACL has significant concerns related to compliance with
grant requirements and other efforts to address programmatic deficiencies.

Within 45 days of receiving this letter, please prepare and submit a draft Corrective Action Plan
(CAP) outlining the steps your P&A program intends to take to address the concerns raised in the
report. Additionally, please inform ACL of any factual inaccuracies in the report so that
corrections can be made.

Submit program performance reports according to the schedule outlined in the CAP. Each report
should include:
1. A cover letter summarizing the submission’s contents.
2. A narrative report detailing the status of activities for the following:
• Independence
• Priority-Setting Process
• Advisory Council
• Program income

Please send your responses electronically to:

Selvin Garcia, Project Officer at Selvin.Garcia@acl.hhs.gov

Ophelia McLain, Director at Ophelia.McLain@acl.hhs.gov

Aaron Taylor, Supervisory Grant Management Specialist at Aaron.Taylor@acl.hhs.gov

We appreciate your cooperation with the review process and look forward to working with you
on behalf of individuals with developmental disabilities and their families in Alabama.

Sincerely,

Ophelia M. McLain, DHA

Director, Office of Disability Services Innovation
Administration on Disabilities

cc: Jennifer Camp, Associate Vice President for Research and Administration, UA
William Brewbaker, Dean, School of Law, UA
Jennifer Johnson, Acting Commissioner, ACL
Aaron Taylor, Supervisory Grants Management Specialist, ACL
Samuel Pierre, RSA
Lisa Stallworth, SAMHSA
Margery McIver, SSA
Daniel Pearman, SSA
 Advancing independence and inclusion of older adults and people with disabilities

ADMINISTRATION ON
DISABILITIES
Quality Review System
Tier 2 Review

REPORT ON THE ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY PROGRAM

(ADAP)

June 24, 2024, State of the State Webinar

July 22-26, 2024, Site Review
Alabama Protection and Advocacy System (ADAP)
Site Visit 2024

Table of Contents
Section I: Executive Summary........................................................................................................ 3
Section II: Overview of the Quality Review System ...................................................................... 5
Section III: Background on The Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (ADAP) P&A and
QRS Heightened Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 7
Section IV: QRS Heightened Monitoring Process.......................................................................... 9
Section V: QRS Heightened Monitoring Findings ....................................................................... 10
Section VI: Corrective Action Plan .............................................................................................. 17
Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 19

2
Alabama Protection and Advocacy System (ADAP)
Site Visit 2024

Section I: Executive Summary

The Administration on Disabilities (AoD), Administration for Community Living (ACL), U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provides funding to protection and advocacy
systems (P&As) in each state to protect the rights of, and advocate for, people with developmental
and other types of disabilities. One of the P&As is The Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program
(ADAP). An onsite review was conducted July 22 – 26, 2024 due to several constituent complaints,
including allegations of poor performance, inadequate responsiveness, and lack of transparency.
The review team consisted of two AoD program staff and one P&A executive director. ACL also
solicited public comments on the quality of services provided by ADAP.
The review team identified five program strengths.
1. Tenured employees play a vital role. Their long-term presence signifies stability and
reliability within the organization. In addition, seasoned employees contribute significantly
to the organization’s identity and operational efficiency through their extensive experience
and deep institutional knowledge.

2. Staff are committed to their work, bringing a high level of expertise to the field. Several
have decades of experience in the disability field, which equips them with comprehensive
knowledge and skills, especially when supporting students through Individualized
Education Program (IEP) meetings, where they play an important role in advocating for
appropriate educational accommodations and services.

3. The P&A’s location within the University of Alabama (U of A) Law School has benefited
the staff. This includes the opportunity afforded to law students to work as law clerks at
ADAP.

4. The P&A launched a newly designed website to build up a stronger presence in the
community. Distinct branding elements were incorporated to clearly differentiate ADAP
from other university affiliates, so community members can recognize and identify the
organization.

5. The P&A is a leader in voting rights. Over the years, ADAP has conducted extensive
training on voting rights, empowering individuals with disabilities to exercise their

3
Alabama Protection and Advocacy System (ADAP)
Site Visit 2024

electoral rights. The collective efforts have also strengthened its partnerships within the
advocacy community.

In addition, the review team identified four areas of noncompliance:

1. Independence – While ADAP’s location within the university has several benefits, there
are no structural safeguards in place to guarantee the P&A can pursue appropriate remedies
unencumbered. See 42 U.S.C. § 15043.

2. Priority Setting – The P&A does not broadly solicit input from the public across Alabama,
nor is there a robust priority planning or setting process in place. See 42 U.S.C. §
15043(a)(2)(D).

3. Advisory Council – The P&A established an advisory council; however, it has not been
active in 12 months, raising concerns about its effectiveness and engagement. Moreover,
there is no evidence to suggest that the previous council was effective in fulfilling its
advisory role. See 42 U.S.C. § 15044 (a)(5).

4. Program Income – The University of Alabama’s grants management policy states that
they adhere to 2 C.F.R. § 200.307 and either default to the additive method or follow the
award agency’s directive. The University of Alabama’s current policy does not adequately
meet the DD Act program income requirement. See 45 C.F.R. § 75.307(e)(2) and 45 C.F.R.
§ 1326.23(b).

The P&A has been designated as a Red Flag; therefore, must take corrective action to remedy areas
of non-compliance. These actions will strengthen the P&A’s capacity to protect and advocate for
the rights of people with developmental disabilities. It must also have an approved, long-range
plan with a timeline for demonstrating progress at regular intervals.

4
Alabama Protection and Advocacy System (ADAP)
Site Visit 2024

Section II: Overview of the Quality Review System

The Administration on Disabilities (AoD), Administration for Community Living (ACL), U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provides funding to protection and advocacy
systems (P&As) in each state to protect the rights of and advocate for people with developmental
disabilities and other types of disabilities. The cornerstone of P&A authority is the Developmental
Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. §§ 15041-45 (2000) (DD Act),
which gives each P&A the authority to:
[P]ursue legal, administrative, and other appropriate remedies or approaches to ensure the
protection of, and advocacy for, the rights of … individuals [with developmental
disabilities] within the State, who are or who may be eligible for treatment, services, or
habilitation, or who are being considered for a change in living arrangements, with
particular attention to members of ethnic and racial minority groups. (42 U.S.C. § 15043)
ACL uses the Quality Review System (QRS) for monitoring its grantees. QRS places emphasis on
promoting quality and performance and has three basic components:
1. Federal review of program compliance and outcomes
2. Federal review of fiscal operations
3. Provision of technical assistance
The three components described above are incorporated into a continuum of monitoring that fall
into two major categories:
1. Baseline Monitoring
2. Heightened Monitoring
1: Baseline Monitoring
Each grantee undergoes programmatic and fiscal reviews on an annual basis.
• Programmatic Reviews: Federal staff annually conduct desk audits by evaluating the
program performance reports submitted by all grantees for compliance and outcomes using
standardized review tools. Each grantee undergoes a risk assessment to identify potential
issues with their activities. Baseline monitoring uses performance data to understand
results at a programmatic and national level. Staff identify trends in the review of the
Program Performance Reports (PPRs) and use this information to design TA to address
areas for improvement across the programs. Staff may also identify specific grantees areas
of need to provide TA focusing on those topics.
5
Alabama Protection and Advocacy System (ADAP)
Site Visit 2024

• Fiscal Reviews: Federal staff annually conduct desk audits of financial status reports. Fiscal
reviews also include the analysis of fiscal expenditures and review of audit reports. Fiscal
and program staff discuss information which may impact program outcome. Fiscal reviews
focus on monetary tracking and accountability. Grantees are asked to demonstrate fiscal
management through the appropriate oversight, monitoring, accounting, and use of federal
funds.
2: Heightened Monitoring
Heightened monitoring is conducted on grantees considered to be at risk for programmatic and/or
fiscal irregularities typically identified during baseline monitoring. Heightened monitoring can
also result from a formal complaint or from state part B grant reviews for Centers for Independent
Living. Examples of instances that may require heightened monitoring include allegations of grant
fraud or mismanagement reported in news articles, social media, or by members of the public, or
potential compliance issues following the review of a PPR. Heightened monitoring involves closer
oversight of a grantee and can be conducted remotely or on-site. It can focus on programmatic
issues, fiscal issues, or both. Heightened monitoring places grantees into two categories:
1. Yellow flag: ‘Yellow flag’ programs are grantees considered to be at-risk grantees for potential
non-compliance. Heightened monitoring of yellow flag grantees involves focused monitoring
of the grantee in specific areas of concern. It is intended to address non-compliance or
complaints before they become serious concerns. Findings from the yellow flag monitoring
may be used to identify more serious concerns and the need for a program to move into the red
flag category. For yellow flags, AoD seeks opportunities to provide targeted technical
assistance.
2. Red flag: ‘Red flag’ programs are those for which ACL has significant concerns related to
compliance with grant requirements, mismanagement of funds, or a lack of responsiveness to
technical assistance and other efforts to address programmatic deficiencies. Inquiries into
grantee’s organizational structure, operations, partnerships, and outcomes under a red flag are
more thorough than those for yellow flag programs. Findings from the Annual Baseline
Monitoring and Heightened Monitoring would be used to guide the areas for focus in a
comprehensive review. However, if ACL receives other information that raises serious
concerns about a grantee, ACL may automatically conduct a comprehensive review. Red flag
programs are prioritized for site visits when resources are limited.

6
Alabama Protection and Advocacy System (ADAP)
Site Visit 2024

Section III: Background on The Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program

(ADAP) P&A and QRS Heightened Monitoring
P&A STRUCTURE
The Alabama P&A – Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (ADAP) – receives funding from
ACL for the following programs:
• Protection and Advocacy for Developmental Disabilities (PADD) program under the
Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (DD Act) (42 U.S.C.
§ 15001 et seq.).
• Protection and Advocacy for Assistive Technology (PAAT) program under the Assistive
Technology Act of 2004 (29 U.S.C. § 3004).
• Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Traumatic Brain Injury (PATBI) program
under the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. § 300d–53).
• Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access (PAVA) program under the Help America
Vote Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. § 21061).

The P&A also receives funding from other federal sources:

• The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) for the
Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) program under the
Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act of 1986, (42 U.S.C. §
10801 et seq.); Children’s Health Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. § 290ii), the PAIMI Rules (42
C.F.R. § 51), and the Reinstatement of Bill of Rights (42 U.S.C. § 10841).
• The Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services
(OSERS) for the Protection and Advocacy for Individual Rights (PAIR) program under
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794), and the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended by the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act (WIOA), and title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA), including students with disabilities under section 113 and individuals with
disabilities employed at subminimum wage under section 511 of the Rehabilitation Act.
• The Social Security Administration for Protection & Advocacy for Beneficiaries of Social
Security (PABSS), and the Protection and Advocacy for Strengthening Protections for
Social Security Beneficiaries (Rep Payee).

7
Alabama Protection and Advocacy System (ADAP)
Site Visit 2024

ACL FY 2023 FUNDING

GRANT PROGRAM AMOUNT
PADD $571,449

PAAT $68,021

PATBI $69,570

PAVA $141,043

Total ACL Funds $850,083

Reason for Site Review

Between December 2023 and April 2024, ACL received constituent complaints with allegations
levied against ADAP. The allegations included:
1. Lack of organizational performance and function, as evidenced by unclear ADAP staff roles
and expectations.
2. Little stakeholder input on priorities.
3. Unclear eligibility processes, which negatively impact investigation and monitoring.
4. High staff turnover.
5. Lack of adequate support to families of individuals with DD.
6. Lack of awareness across the state of the P&A’s existence.
7. Lack of responsiveness by ADAP staff.
As a result of these complaints, AoD staff decided to conduct an on-site review of ADAP
programs. The review team consisted of ACL program staff and a P&A Executive Director as a
peer reviewer.

8
Alabama Protection and Advocacy System (ADAP)
Site Visit 2024

The Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (ADAP) QRS Team Members

Team Member Organization

Ophelia McLain, Director Office on Disability Service Innovation (ODSI),

Administration on Disabilities, Administration for
Community Living, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Washington, DC
Selvin Garcia, Program Specialist Office on Disability Service Innovation (ODSI),
Administration on Disabilities, Administration for
Community Living, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Washington, DC
Michelle Roberts, Executive Disability Rights Michigan
Director Lansing, MI

Section IV: QRS Heightened Monitoring Process

Public Notice Period
As part of the heightened monitoring review process, ACL solicited public comment on the quality
of services provided by ADAP. The public notice for comments was posted in the Federal Register
on June 12, 2024, 89 FR 49879. The public had the option of commenting by mail, telephone, or
email during a 30-day period. As a result of the public notice, 15 comments were received by AoD.
Commenters complemented ADAP on the commitment and skillfulness of attorneys and staff, as
well as their success in protecting the rights of people with disabilities given the resources available
to fulfill their mandates. In addition, ADAP staff were praised for being wonderful advocates for
their clients and effective client communication and prioritization of resources. Other comments
reflected criticism of ADAP due to the lack of responsiveness upon requesting assistance, limited
assistance conducted on a case-by-case basis, rather than system change efforts and the refusal to
follow up on investigatory findings related to client assaults. Commenters also mentioned the lack
of resources in languages other than English, and systematically not having a council that meets
regularly nor publishes minutes publicly.

9
Alabama Protection and Advocacy System (ADAP)
Site Visit 2024

Submission of the QRS Review Tool (Checklist) by the P&A

On June 12, 2024, ACL notified ADAP that the designated P&A on-site review would be
conducted for the Federal grant programs funded by ACL. The P&A was instructed to complete
and submit the checklist. When the checklist was submitted to ACL, the QRS team reviewed the
checklist, clarified some questions, and requested relevant stakeholders to be interviewed during
the on-site review.
The State of the State Presentation
A State of the State Presentation was provided to AoD by ADAP P&A staff on June 26, 2024 and
July 2, 2024. The PowerPoint presentation provided an overview of services and supports in
Alabama, including issues in the state’s services systems as well as the strengths and challenges
of disability advocacy in the state. This information provided context for reviewing information
provided by the P&A using the QRS review tool checklist. A copy of the State of the State
presentation is included in this report as Appendix B.
On-site Visit
During the onsite visit, the review team interviewed ADAP staff, the PADD Council, Dean of
University of Alabama School of Law, and other stakeholders.
In addition to these interviews, the team randomly selected 10 case files out of a list of 116. The
team also reviewed ADAP’s Policy and Procedures Manual, website, and its most widely used
brochure. Based on the information gathered, the QRS team has identified areas of non-compliance
and concerns that require attention.

Section V: QRS Heightened Monitoring Findings

This section provides a narrative summary of the review team’s findings, including the areas of
strength, satisfactory program aspects, areas of noncompliance, areas for improvement, and
recommendations identified through the review. Both the program and fiscal review teams found
strengths and areas of noncompliance at ADAP.
The QRS review team identified five program strengths in the following key areas:
1. Tenured staff
2. Staff commitment to their work
3. Location within U of A and unique structure
10
Alabama Protection and Advocacy System (ADAP)
Site Visit 2024

4. Newly designed website

5. Voting rights advocacy

The review team found four areas where the P&A was out of compliance with the DD Act and its
implementing regulations.
1. Independence
2. Priority Setting Process
3. Advisory Council
4. Program Income

PROGRAM STRENGTHS:
During the monitoring, the review team found several strengths within the agency.
1. Tenured staff
Tenured employees play a vital role. Most of the staff have been with the organization for
over five years, with the longest serving employees having over 20 years of experience.
Their long-term presence signifies stability and reliability within the organization. In
addition, seasoned employees contribute significantly to the organization’s identity and
operational efficiency through their extensive experience and deep institutional knowledge.
When tenured employees leave an organization, this results in the loss of their invaluable
experience and insights which negatively impacts the organization performance.
2. Staff commitment to their work
ADAP P&A staff are committed to their work, bringing a high level of expertise to the
field. Several have decades of experience in the disability field, which equips them with
comprehensive knowledge and skills, especially when supporting students through
Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings, where they play an important role in
advocating for appropriate educational accommodations and services. Staff also provide
valuable education and guidance to parents, helping them navigate the complexities of the
special education system and empower them to advocate effectively for their children.
Moreover, the P&A exemplifies excellence with an inclusion of a peer advocate, who is
passionate and knowledgeable in the field of disability advocacy. The P&A also has strong
litigators, evidenced by past and current litigation outcomes.
11
Alabama Protection and Advocacy System (ADAP)
Site Visit 2024

3. Location within University of Alabama and unique structure

The P&A’s location within the University of Alabama has undoubtedly benefited them.
For instance, law students are afforded the opportunity to work as law clerks at ADAP.
Social work students from universities across the state meet their practicum requirements
by shadowing ADAP staff while learning skills and information about the disability
community. In addition, ADAP is provided invaluable administrative support such as
human resources and information technology. We note, however, this structure may create
independence concerns, which we discuss in the section on areas of non-compliance.
4. Newly designed website
ADAP P&A recently launched a newly designed website to build up a stronger presence
in the community. Distinct branding elements were incorporated to clearly differentiate
ADAP P&A from other university affiliates so community members can recognize and
identify the organization.
5. Leader in voting rights
ADAP has established itself as a leader in advocating for voting rights, a reputation echoed
by different network partners. Over the years, ADAP has conducted extensive training
focused on voting rights, empowering individuals with disabilities to exercise their
electoral rights. The collective efforts have also strengthened its partnerships within the
advocacy community.

SATISFACTORY PROGRAM AREAS:

During the on-site monitoring, the review team found several satisfactory program areas.
1. Client files and policy and procedure manual are well organized
ADAP employs a standardized system for organizing its files, ensuring consistency and
efficiency in document management across the organization. The system allows staff to
easily locate and access necessary information. In addition, ADAP maintains a well-
organized policy and procedure manual that provides clear guidance on all aspects of its
operation.

12
Alabama Protection and Advocacy System (ADAP)
Site Visit 2024

2. Collaboration with DD Act partners and other agencies

The P&A works well with stakeholders including the DD Act partners (University Center
for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities – University of Alabama at Birmingham;
Alabama Developmental Disabilities Council). The group collaborates on several projects,
the most notable being Partners in Policymaking of Alabama, which is a thriving project.
Of note is meaningful collaboration with People First of Alabama. ADAP also provides
training in collaboration with various partners, including the DD Act partners mentioned
above, as well as other agencies. These trainings focus on voting rights, human rights, and
Medicaid, ensuring that stakeholders and community members are well informed and
empowered to advocate for themselves and others.
3. Empowered clients
Clients noted that that ADAP supplied them with resources which explained their rights,
along with template letters to facilitate their advocacy efforts. They greatly appreciated
how ADAP equipped them with the necessary knowledge and tools allowing them to be
empowered.

AREAS OF NON-COMPLIANCE FROM THE REVIEW:

ADAP P&A is out of compliance in the following four (4) areas:

1. Independence 42 U.S.C. § 15043

A State may appoint either a state agency or a private nonprofit entity as its P&A system.
42 U.S.C. § 15044(a). In either case, the P&A system must have certain structural features
that ensure its independence from the state's government. Virginia Off. for Prot. & Advoc.
v. Stewart, 563 U.S. 247, 251 (2011).
The DD Act restricts the state's ability to impose hiring freezes or other measures that
would impair the system's ability to carry out its mission. 42 U.S.C. § 15043(a)(2)(K). An
independent P&A system is free of executive branch oversight, operates independently of
the state Attorney General, and employs its own lawyers to sue on its own behalf. See
Stewart at 250.

13
Alabama Protection and Advocacy System (ADAP)
Site Visit 2024

ADAP is located in the law school of the University of Alabama, a state university that
makes up one of three research institutions in the University of Alabama System. The
university system is governed by a Board of Trustees, made up of 15 elected members and
one ex-officio member, the Governor of Alabama. ADAP currently does not have a
functioning governing board or advisory board. The Dean of the law school, who reports
to the Board of Trustees, serves as the “governing body” making strategic and operational
decisions for ADAP. The Dean of the law school oversees ADAPs short and long-term
programming including the agency’s annual priority setting and short-term programs and
objectives. The law school Dean maintains financial oversight of ADAP through
consultation with the university’s Office for Research and Economic Development, the
Law School Director of Financial Affairs, the ADAP Director, and other university
partners and acts as a mandatory approver for all grants authorized to ADAP through the
University’s Office for Sponsored Programs. The dean also serves critical HR functions,
such as approving salary increases, conducting executive director hiring, and performing
executive director annual performance reviews.
The close fiscal, programmatic, and organizational relationship of the state of Alabama,
the University of Alabama, the dean of the law school, and ADAP may impede the P&A’s
ability to act on behalf of people with disabilities free from state interference. Furthermore,
even absent direct evidence of actual state interference, the structure of the relationship
between ADAP and the university creates the appearance of state influence or control,
particularly given that ADAP does not have an active independent governing or advisory
board to guide it.
The DD Act permits P&A systems to be located in state entities. Furthermore, as discussed
earlier, ADAP’s location in the law school confers benefits to the system and its clients.
However, to come into compliance with DD Act requirement, the P&A system must
establish structural safeguards to ensure independence from the state.
2. Priority Setting Process 42 U.S.C. § 15043(a)(2)(D):
The DD Act requires the P&A provide an annual opportunity for the public to comment on
the goals and priorities established by the system and the rationale for the establishment of
such goals, as well as the activities of the system, including coordination of services with
entities serving older adults and people with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 15043(a)(2)(D).
ADAP’s priority setting process is not clear. The P&A does not broadly solicit input from
the public across Alabama, nor is there a robust priority planning or setting process in place.
14
Alabama Protection and Advocacy System (ADAP)
Site Visit 2024

While ADAP reports that they conduct focus groups, the persons are solicited and hand-
picked by the staff and thus not representative of the community. In addition, ADAP notes
a survey on its website and social media advertising reaches a sufficient number of people;
however, it is unclear that the P&A has considered the digital divide in the mainly rural
state.
3. Advisory Council 42 U.S.C. § 15044(a)(5):
ADAP has established an advisory council as mandated by the DD Act 42 U.S.C. §
15044(a)(5). However, the council has not been active in the past 12 months, raising
concerns about its effectiveness and engagement. There is no evidence to suggest that the
previous board was effective in fulfilling its advisory role. The functions and
responsibilities of the advisory council remain unclear, leaving stakeholders uncertain
about its contributions to the organization’s mission and activities.
4. Program Income 45 C.F.R. § 75.307, 45 C.F.R. § 75.307(e)(2)), 45 C.F.R. § 1326.23(b):
The University of Alabama grant management budget policy states that they adhere to 2
C.F.R. § 200.307 and either default to the additive method or follow the award agency’s
directive. The Notice of Award for the DD Act award [program code PADD] establishes
that grantees must adhere to 45 C.F.R. § 75.307, use the additive method (45 C.F.R. §
75.307(e)(2)), and comply with the statute and program regulations. DD Act program
regulation at 45 C.F.R. § 1326.23(b) states:
“Attorneys’ fees are considered program income pursuant to 45 C.F.R. part 75 and must
be added to the funds committed to the program and used to further the objectives of the
program. This requirement shall apply to all attorneys’ fees, including those earned by
contractors and those received after the project period in which they were earned.”
Therefore, program income earned on the PADD award must be tracked both during the
award period and after the award period ends, and income earned (attorney’s fees) must be
managed in a separate account and remains available to implement programmatic work.
The University of Alabama’s current policy does not adequately meet the DD Act program
income requirement.

15
Alabama Protection and Advocacy System (ADAP)
Site Visit 2024

AREAS OF CONCERN/FOR IMPROVEMENT

Along with the four areas of noncompliance which the P&A must promptly address through a
Corrective Action Plan (CAP), the programmatic review team found five areas for improvement
from the programmatic review. While these areas do not require a CAP, remedying these concerns
will strengthen the P&A operations.
1. Balancing Litigation
While this P&A has an impressive litigation record, the dedication of significant attention
to litigation efforts can limit the P&A’s capacity to address a broader range of challenges,
such as emerging advocacy needs. As a result, it may potentially affect its overall impact
and effectiveness in serving the diverse needs of individuals with disabilities across the
state.
2. Client communication
The review team randomly selected cases from a list of 116 cases. The review of case files
indicated that ADAP clearly distinguished the eligibility process. However, the level of
contact was unacceptable, as seven out of 10 cases indicated significant gaps of
communication from ADAP staff and clients. This has eroded client satisfaction and trust,
therefore reducing the effectiveness of advocacy provided.
3. Enhancing ADAP Capacity through Non-Attorney Legal Advocacy
Based on ACL’s review, ADAP does not appear to have sufficient capacity to complete
the full spectrum of work it is required to perform under the DD Act. It would benefit from
utilizing non-attorneys to complete legal advocacy work. If not, the P&A will continue to
limit what the organization can accomplish. Through use of non-legal staff, ADAP can
allow attorneys to focus on more complex legal issues and litigation, expanding the
organization’s overall capacity to serve its clients.
Without leveraging non-attorney resources, ADAP risks continuing to limit what the
organization can accomplish, potentially leaving many clients underserved and reducing
the impact of their advocacy efforts. This strategic approach of using non-attorneys would
increase efficiency, improve client service, and ensure that ADAP can meet its mission
more effectively. This has proven to be an effective approach in other P&As.

16
Alabama Protection and Advocacy System (ADAP)
Site Visit 2024

4. Missing Independent Living Presence in ADAP’s Committee Involvement

While ADAP is actively involved in several committees and task forces, there is a
noticeable absence of representation from the Independent Living (IL) Community. This
lack of presence is significant because the IL movement plays a crucial role in advocating
for the autonomy and rights of people with disabilities. By not incorporating
representatives who are deeply involved in IL, ADAP may miss critical insights and
opportunities to address issues that directly impact the daily lives of individuals with
disabilities.
5. Public Responsiveness
The P&A’s responsiveness has come under public scrutiny and their inconsistent response
to community input has negatively impacted the organization’s reputation and diminished
public’s trust. To improve, the P&A should focus on enhancing its capacity in this area to
ensure stronger community relations. This will result in more effective advocacy.

Section VI: Corrective Action Plan

The P&A must take corrective action to remedy areas of non-compliance. These actions will
strengthen the P&A’s capacity to protect and advocate for the rights of people with DD. ACL
recognizes that sweeping changes cannot occur immediately. As part of its CAP, the P&A must
prepare a long-range plan with a timeline for demonstrating progress at regular intervals for ACL
approval. In addition, the P&A may contact the National Disability Rights Network (NDRN), the
P&A Training and Technical Assistance provider, to obtain targeted technical assistance on
programmatic matters and the ACL fiscal team on fiscal matters.
Based on the issues found in this report, the P&A must develop a CAP that addresses the following.
1. Independence
ADAP must prioritize its operational and financial independence from the university. It is
essential to clarify the boundaries between ADAP and the University of Alabama and
clearly articulate safeguards in place to ensure ADAP’s autonomy. ADAP must review its
organizational structure and establish necessary firewalls, memoranda of understanding,
accounting procedures, staffing related policies and procedures, and any other structural
safeguards to transparently demonstrate independence. These safeguards can clarify its

17
Alabama Protection and Advocacy System (ADAP)
Site Visit 2024

relationship with UA’s relevant offices, ensuring that key fiscal requirements are not
missed or ignored, and that the ADAP attorneys can litigate without interference from UA.
2. Priority Setting Process
ADAP must ensure its priority-setting process complies with statutory requirements by:
• Facilitating an annual opportunity for public input on system goals and priorities. This
process must actively solicit participation from the state’s disability community and
demonstrate consideration of the unserved and underserved areas of the state.
• Implementing robust, data-driven guidance to support decision-making during the priority-
setting process. The guidance should document how community input and relevant data
inform final priority decisions.
• Equipping staff with necessary skills and knowledge to effectively implement the process,
including specialized training in collaboration with NDRN or other relevant organizations.
This training should ensure the process maximizes its impact across all regions of the state.
3. Advisory Council
The P&A must ensure a working and effective advisory council, per the DD Act
requirements. 42 U.S.C. § 15044(a)(5). It is important to evaluate the PADD council’s
composition to ensure it includes a diverse group of stakeholders, such as individuals with
disabilities, family members and professionals from various sectors relevant to disability
advocacy. It is also important that the council meets regularly and has clear outlined
objectives, goals, and activities to ensure it can effectively “advise the system on policies
and priorities to be carried out in protecting the rights of individuals with developmental
disabilities” per 42 U.S.C. § 15044.
4. Program Income
The University of Alabama and ADAP are required to revise the processes and controls for
tracking program income on the PADD award to ensure compliance with the DD Act
requirements. This includes ensuring that both the accounting and programmatic policies
adequately define the procedures for tracking and expending program income. Policies and
procedures must align with 45 C.F.R. § 75.307(e)(2) to ensure the P&A is unencumbered
in utilizing funds derived from program income in accordance with federal regulations.

18
Alabama Protection and Advocacy System (ADAP)
Site Visit 2024

Appendices
The appendices listed below are provided in a separate document for reference.
Appendix A: Relevant Statute and Regulation
Appendix B: Copy of the State of the State Presentation
Appendix C: Copy of Site Visit Agenda
Appendix D: Copy of Completed Heightened Monitoring, Category 2 Review Tool

19